High Tides And Legal Rides: The Copyright War Over Moana

Disney is facing a $10 billion lawsuit over claims that their blockbuster franchise "Moana" was created from the copyrighted materials of "Bucky the Wave Warrior," an original screenplay by the animator Buck Woodall.

Buck G. Woodall v. The Walt Disney Company, etc. et al1

Introduction

Disney is facing a $10 billion lawsuit over claims that their blockbuster franchise “Moana” was created from the copyrighted materials of “Bucky the Wave Warrior,” an original screenplay by the animator Buck Woodall. The case (with regards to Moana 2) was filed in January 2025 in the Federal Court in California; which received widespread media attention and highlighted various copyright concerns.

The Conflict

Buck Woodall claimed that Moana and its sequel i.e., Moana 2 is copied from his screenplay, which he has worked on for over 20 years alleging copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. Woodall asserted that both stories (Bucky the wave warrior and Moana 2) share a central plot. i.e., a Polynesian teenager, against parental restrictions, embarks on a dangerous sea voyage. He also claimed that the thematic parallels, along with other typical elements like demigods guiding the protagonists, are crucial to his infringement argument.

Jenny Marchick, a former director of Mandeville Films who is now a top executive in feature development at DreamWorks Animation (which has entered into a distribution deal with Disney) was provided various materials regarding the animated character ‘Bucky’ back in the year 2003. The plaintiff also claimed that his work was granted protection under the U.S. copyright law in 2004 and updated the copyright on these materials in 2014.

Moana I

Previous Legal Action & Current Developments

The plaintiff attempted to sue Disney over its animated movie Moana I (2016) for copyright infringement, trade secrets misappropriation and fraud conspiracy that was dismissed on grounds of limitation.

Regarding the merger doctrine defense by Disney, the Court determined that the Defendants were unable to use this defense during the trial as they failed to present any evidence showing that ‘the idea’ in the work ‘could only be expressed in only one way’ or that ‘the idea and its expression were indistinguishable.’ The defendant’s took scènes à faire defense that was allowed by the Hon’ble Court, wherein the defense submitted that a copyrighted work would not be protected against infringement if the expression embodied in the work necessarily stems from a commonly known idea. For example: the defendant’s report mentioned that themes such as perilous ocean, nature’s beckoning to humans, and spirit guides guiding people were common elements in Polynesian folklore. Additionally, the idea of a protagonist facing a storm at sea was a typical element in maritime tales, and the portrayal of teenage protagonists as rebellious and parents as overprotective were stereotypical depictions in coming-of-age narratives.

On March 10, 2025, the Federal Jury ruled in favor of Buena Vista Home Entertainment, a Disney DVD distribution arm and dismissed the copyright lawsuit since the jury found no evidence that Disney’s filmmakers had seen Woodall’s work, they did not need to analyze whether the two projects shared any creative similarities. This decision sets a significant a precedent in copyright disputes. However, with pursuing a separate lawsuit against Disney over Moana 2 (2024), the outcome of this case could be different if Woodall successfully demonstrates that Disney had access to and copied his original work.

Moana II

Alleged Similarities Between Bucky The Wave Warrior & Moana I and II

• Both featured a young protagonist embarking on a dangerous sea voyage to save an endangered island despite getting warnings from parents,
• Spiritual ancestors appearing as animals to guide the protagonist;
• Usage of Polynesian cultural elements, including navigation by stars and interactions with mythological beings,
• A symbolic necklace playing an important role in both the stories,
• Encounter with shape shifting demigod with tattoos and a giant hook.

Through the Lens of the Indian Judiciary

In case of V. T. Thomas v. Malayala Manorama2 the plaintiff created “Boban and Molly” before his employment with Malayala Manorama. After his employment ended, he continued to create cartoons with these characters for Kala Kamudi (a rival publisher). Malayala Manorama claimed copyright infringement, but the Kerala High Court ruled in favor of Thomas, recognizing him as the rightful owner of the copyright. The court emphasized that artistic works created before employment remain the property of the creator. This case established that a cartoonist retains copyright ownership over the characters they create, this can be used to argue that Buck Woodall, as the creator of “Bucky”, owns the copyright to his character and its unique attributes.

In Raja Pocket Books vs. Radha Pocket Books3 the plaintiff claimed that the character “Nagesh” of the defendants was deceptively similar to their character “Nagraj,” leading to copyright infringement and customer confusion. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the character’s similarities infringed copyright laws. The court granted an injunction against the defendants, preventing them from using the character “Nagesh.”

As the Indian Courts emphasize the distinction between an idea (which is not eligible for protection) and its expression (which is eligible for protection), Buck would have to argue that Disney copied his expression of the story, characters, and themes, not the general idea.

Thin vs. Thick Copyright Protection

In copyright law, not all works receive the same level of protection. Courts often distinguish between “thick and thin” protection. Copyright protection varies in strength, depending on the originality and creative expression involved in a work. This distinction plays a crucial role in cases like Moana 2, where the discussion revolves around whether the allegedly copied elements are protectable expressions or merely generic themes derived from Polynesian folklore stories.

• Thick Copyright Protection4

This applies to highly original works with unique creative expression. If a work exhibits substantial creative choices beyond common themes and standard elements, it receives a stronger protection. Imitating or reproducing such a distinctive work, even if only minor modifications are introduced, is much more likely to be considered as an infringement of its intellectual property.

Example: A novel with complex characters, unique world building, and intricate plot structures. (eg. Harry Potter)

• Thin Copyright protection

This applies to works that incorporate many common elements or standard themes. In such cases, only the unique arrangement of these elements are protected, of the general idea. Slight modifications or independent recreations may not amount to infringement.

Example: A generic rags to riches story or a superhero origin story.

Woodall’s claims pivot on whether Bucky the Wave Warrior deserves thick copyright protection (i.e., the similarities are unique and creatively expressed) or thin protection (i.e., the elements are common in adventure storytelling). If the Court finds that Polynesian folklore-based stories inherently share certain elements (e.g. oceanic journeys, mystical guidance), then Woodall’s claims may occur weak.

Independent or Derivative Work?

One of the fundamental debates in a copyright dispute is whether a new work is an independent creation or a derivative work based on pre-existing material. While the case is still ongoing and progresses through the legal system, both the plaintiff and the defendant possess opportunities to undertake specific actions or strategies. In particular, the plaintiff is entitled to invoke certain defenses to support their claims and counter any arguments put forth by the defendant. The following strategies can be used by both the parties:

The plaintiff can take certain defenses in this regard:

a) Access & Similarities: The plaintiff alleges that Disney executives had access to his screenplay as early as 2003. However, the onus of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove the similarities or expressions not just the themes.

b) Structural & Narrative Parallels: If distinct aspects of Bucky the Wave Warrior – such as character arcs, dialogue, or unique symbolic elements appear in Moana 2, it could suggest derivation rather than independent creation.

The defendant can take certain defenses:

a) Common themes in Folklore: Many cultures have myths featuring a young hero on an oceanic journey. Courts may see these similarities as inevitable rather than the result of copying.

b) Parallel Development in Film Industry: Moana 2 could have been developed organically, inspired by Polynesian legends rather than the Bucky the Wave Warrior.

c) Lack of Direct Proof: If Woodall cannot establish that Disney had direct access to his work and replicated specific, protectable elements, the strength of his claims in the present case would weaken.

What Could this Case Result in?

This case can set an important precedent in copyright law, specifically in entertainment industry, where disputes over story ideas and creative similarities are common. Copyright protection should be applicable only to creations that incorporate unique narratives in addition to the central theme. However, there are frequent ethical concerns regarding how some corporations exploit cultural representations without providing proper acknowledgment or compensation to the originating communities.

Lastly, the case will hinge on whether the character ‘Moana’ is deemed an independent creation or an unauthorized adaptation of Bucky the Wave warrior. If the Hon’ble Court rules in favor of Disney (as ruled in Moana I) then it would reinforce the principle that copyright protects expression, not general ideas or themes prevailing the scènes à faire defense.

Disclaimer – The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors and are purely informative in nature.